eds_audit_site

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior ('Read-only; safe to run anytime') and explains the conditional nature of performance/404 checks (when a domain is supplied). It does not detail output format or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The first sentence is information-dense, the second is a concise safety note, and the third gives actionable usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's scope, conditional behavior, and workflow. It could mention the shape of the prioritized list or the effect of maxPages, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds some context by linking 'domain' to real-user data and 'subtree' to pathPrefix, but this largely repeats schema information, keeping it at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs ('sweep', 'return a prioritized list') and clearly identifies the resource (whole site or subtree). It enumerates the dimensions covered (SEO, accessibility, freshness, sitemap, performance, 404s) and distinguishes itself from page-level audit tools like eds_audit_page.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states it is read-only and safe to run anytime, and suggests pairing with write tools to fix findings. However, it references 'eds_da_*' tools, which appear to be source-management tools rather than the actual fix tools (eds_fix_*) in the sibling list, providing potentially misleading guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.